Do neo-cons realize that their are more Constitutional amendments than the 2nd?

Question

The 4th amendment is just as important as the 2nd yet they do not seem to care about anything in the Constitution besides owning a firearm.

Has anyone ever heard a neo-con state; "They will have to pry my right to privacy out of my dead hands"?

im_foxyg (below) How so? What era are you speaking of? How will your .357 fair against A-10 attack planes, F-22 Raptors, and tanks?

Today, firearms wouldn't do squat against the US military. Maybe so in the days of Muskets and cowboys. Not today.

godgunsa (below) Same response to your state ment as above. Quit day dreaming that you somehow intend on using a firearm for anything other than shooting targets and protecting your home. Your weapon(s) don't do anything to protect the US Constitution. We have a military that we pay to do that for us.

Answer 1

I don't own a gun. However, I don't care that people do. I grew up in a home with several guns, and a skeet round reloader (commonly known as a grabber). I have no problem with this either. My point is, why legislate? I've carried, I've not carried, both work in certain situations.

WE HAVE NO ETHICAL RIGHT TO BLANKET LEGISLATE. Rules are different for different people in different areas. Take a shotgun away from a rancher, and coyotes eat his stock. I'm not pro-assault weapons (the shotgun doesn't have to be a repeater, for God's sake), but it's just like the EPA telling me it's illegal to convert my car to E-85 for pollution purposes. Made a dumb law to put out a fire, and lose power and votes doing it.

The 2nd amendment is just that, the 2nd. It's more important to me than, say, the 21st, since I don't drink, but that's my choice, just like not owning, or owning, a gun should be my choice - NOT YOURS.

Answer 2

I do not think that they will rule with the city of Chicago/Cook County. I think they would have a very difficult time saying some Constitutional rights apply to state laws as well as federal but not others. Listening to some of the answers from those thinking it should be upheld is rather funny since if the Bill of Rights only applied to Federal Law then what would stop a state from establishing a state/city/county religion or restricting freedom of speech? Historically the last state to sign the Bill of Rights was Massachusetts's and there objection was to that specific right-in short they wanted the freedom to establish a state religion without federal law prohibiting that. The Rights within the Bill of Rights apply to all law making bodies in this country and all rights for the citizens of the country not just restrictions on the federal government. If the 14th Amendment does not answer that for all rights but just to those rights the court and legislature says it does who is to say that a future court/legislature will redefine which it applies too? Freedom of speech or religion could be the next or a complete reversal of the 14th as it has to be applied equally to all rights or none at all. Ruling it only applies to those rights which the court or legislative bodies says it applies too would be a very dangerous and convoluted ruling.

Answer 3

Have you read the second amendment? The founders did not say that the people have a right to bear "firearms". They said "arms". If An individual carries a military type weapon, great. A head of household should get to have a squad level heavy weapon. Towns can have rockets for all I care. You should be able to resist the excesses of a tyranical government. It starts in the home, me with my lowly pistol versus the "cop" who wants to steal my stuff. Citizens in mexico city aren't allowed to own guns. Last time I drove in mexico I was robbed by a cop.
Vote for who ever you think will serve you best, but when those in office refuse to leave, what will you do then?
Not all conservatives are neocons.

Answer 4

The entire Bill of Rights is worth defending. But what are you going to defend it with if you give up your second amendment rights? And how are you honoring the constitution if you think that some amendments are not worth defending? When a cop kicks in your door without a search warrant, he's a trespasser. Shoot him. That's why you have a second amendment. When they seize your property without due process, they are thieves. Shoot them. You get the idea. The Constitution is a list of things the government is not allowed to do. The second on on the list was they can't take your guns, because if they do that you can't stop them from doing anything else.

Answer 5

If the left were as zealous in it's protection of the 2nd amendment as it was about the 1st and 4th we would all be toting bazookas by now. Look, of course Conservative of the traditional or neo type believe all the amendments to the constitution should be enforced. The difference we have with liberal is that we believe the constitution should only apply to US citizens, not to those captured on foreign battle fields trying to kill us, or for those engaged in activities in a foreign country, like the folks who call into the country from overseas.

Answer 6

Well, obviously, we do need the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms - including weapon systems like LAWs and SAMs. ;) And the right to privacy is only implied, most conservatives are tight-constructionist.

And even neo-cons (even by your particularly paranoid definition), are also fond of the 10th Amendment, at minimum.

Answer 7

Dude, you need to calm down before you exercise your 2nd Amendment rights and people get hurt. I've never seen someone be so personally combative while attacking people who believe in the 2nd Amendment.

Answer 8

You think it is easy to protect this nation from enemies within?

What are your suggestions as to a better solution?

I bet you threw a fit when they asked you to take off your shoes at the airport after 9/11.

No one is suggesting that every phone be tapped. If you are not calling suspected terror networks over seas, than you have nothing to worry about.

Next Question.

Answer 9

Neocons DON'T support the second amendment, they want it gone. Neocons exist in both the main parties. Neocons and conservatives are COMPLETELY different, their not even close to the same. Conservatives are just as big on preserving the rights of americans as liberals but the masters of political science want you to believe that there is a difference in the two main parties.

Answer 10

How would one pry the right to privacy? And yes, there are more amendments and I have written my representatives about no-warrant searches on Americans. I do not believe however that non-citizens are afforded the same protections as citizens.